Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
02/07/2013 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB19 | |
| HB15 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 19-PERM. MOT. VEH. REGISTRATION/TRAILERS
1:07:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE announced that the first order of business
would be HB 19, HOUSE BILL NO. 19, "An Act relating to permanent
motor vehicle registration; relating to the registration fee for
noncommercial trailers and to the motor vehicle tax for
trailers; and providing for an effective date."
1:07:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, Alaska State Legislature, related
that a bill similar to HB 19 was heard last year. Last year, he
said he asked to have the bill sent back to committee for more
deliberations to address issues. He said he believes in the
committee process. He stated HB 19 would provide owners the
convenience of being able to register their trailer once and
receive a permanent registration. He stated that his
constituents prefer not to deal with government on a regular
basis. Further, HB 19 would also address an equity issue since
commercial trailers have a favorable tax treatment compared to
non-commercial trailers. This bill would also allow for
permanent registration of personal-use motor vehicles older than
eight years.
1:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE acknowledged that the eight-year figure
was arbitrary, but after vehicles reach a certain age it seems
reasonable the person should have the option for permanent
registration. Further, this option became available with the
dismantling the Inspection and Maintenance (IM) program. He
explained that the Municipality of Anchorage's emissions testing
affected Matanuska-Susitna commuters, but the removal of the IM
program now allows for the possibility of permanent
registration. He related some fiscal issues still exist with HB
19. He characterized the IM program and two-year registration
as revenue generators for the Department of Administration. Not
all fiscal issues have been resolved, such that even today a
revised fiscal note was issued to remove some assumptions the
department used. He suggested that committee members can make a
determination on the fiscal implications as the committee
considers policy issues; however, he cautioned members to be
skeptical of assumptions made by departments, which rely upon
revenues. He surmised members could decide whether these
revenues belong in the state's pocket, or their constituents'
pockets, which he characterized as being a common sense issue.
Under HB 19, the permanent registration program would be
optional for individuals. Additionally, the community can
decide whether to collect revenues so a local option is
included. He understood "Talk Radio" in Southcentral Alaska has
been pretty charged up about this issue. Even though he has not
promoted this publicity, the issue grew from spontaneous
comments by constituents and as a representative he was
responsive to their needs.
1:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS disclosed she owns two vehicles that would
fall under the category of vehicles being older than eight years
old. She has also received numerous calls and e-mails from
constituents who support the concept in HB 19. She said she
also owns commercial trailers that she only registers once. She
related she also has snowmachine trailers, and while she does
pay the fees, she admitted she doesn't always get the tags
adhered to the trailer on a timely basis. She reiterated many
constituents have the same issue.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE disclosed that he has also owns an old
boat trailer and an old truck.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN says his personal vehicles are all over
eight years old and he also owns a vacation trailer over two
years old.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE remarked that people are busy and to have
to register vehicles every two years is time consuming and
generates little revenue. He asked, "Why not just register it
once and be done with it? It certainly is a legitimate point."
1:17:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN suggested he likely pays less for
registration since he is a senior citizen. He asked whether
vehicle registration for seniors is available for vehicles eight
years or older under the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE deferred to the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) to answer. He recalled that seniors are entitled
to one vehicle exemption.
1:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he read a letter from the
Alaska Municipal League (AML). He recalled she commented on
revisions to a bill last year that led to the AML to withdraw
its opposition and be neutral on the bill. He asked whether the
sponsor could speak to the revised provisions.
REPRESENTATIVE STOLTZE answered the revised bill included a
well-defined local option. He suggested the AML may still have
some concerns, although he was unsure.
1:18:46 PM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the bill sponsor, referred to one
concern that AML had last year, which was that municipalities
would not be able to collect motor vehicle registration taxes
(MVRT) at the time of registration. However, changes to last
year's bill, which is also reflected in HB 19, would allow
municipalities to set a MVRT for vehicles registered permanent
registration. He briefly described the process municipalities
would use, including that local government would pass an
ordinance to allow it to collect MVRT for vehicles registered
permanently or for non-commercial trailers.
1:20:09 PM
MR. BREESE stated Section 2 of HB 19 would allow vehicle owners
an option to obtain a permanent vehicle registration for
vehicles that are eight years or older or to continue to
register their vehicle biennially. Owners would pay the DMV
fees based on the vehicle age and other factors, plus a one-time
$25 fee for permanent registration. He suggested the DMV would
likely add a box on registration forms for permanent
registration, as well as supply a tab, sticker, or plate for
permanent registration.
MR. BREESE reported that currently seniors are allowed a single
motor vehicle registration exemption. He turned to proposed
Section 3 of the bill and explained that a senior citizen would
need to decide whether to pay the $25 for permanent exemption or
apply for the senior exemption from the DMV. He reiterated that
this section does not set out a specific exemption for seniors;
however, if he was a senior, he would likely choose the senior
citizen exemption but to do so would mean registering the
vehicle biennially.
1:23:14 PM
MR. BREESE pointed out that Section 4 refers to non-commercial
trailers, such as recreational trailers, boats, snowmachines
horse trailers. This proposed section would allow the non-
commercial trailer owner to pay the $30 fee, plus a $25 fee for
permanent registration which is an option. He pointed out the
two-year registration is still allowed.
MR. BREESE said while the language is not necessary for the
bill, Section 5 was left in the statutes allow municipalities
the option to implement any IM program if the program is
reinstated.
1:24:59 PM
MR. BREESE explained that Section 6 would set out the base rate
for the MVRT. He referred to the change on page 4, line 9, to
an option for any permanent vehicle registration tax imposed by
municipalities. Currently municipalities have the authority to
set a MVRT, but not all municipalities do so. He recalled 16
communities currently have a MVRT with varying rates and a
listing of these communities is in members' packets titled,
"MVRT Collections by Community." In fact, the MVRT is a
municipal tax and not a state tax, he said. Currently the DMV
collects the MVRT for municipalities and retains an eight
percent fee to collect the tax.
1:26:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS understood the person has an option to
apply for permanent registration. She asked whether the
permanent registration is transferable.
MR. BREESE answered no. He explained that sales are treated
like any other vehicle sale.
1:27:20 PM
MR. BREESE referred to Section 7, and to page 4, lines 22-23 of
HB 19. He explained that only one registration tax may be
collected. Under proposed Sections 8-9, the state cannot
collect more than $100 in MVRT for vehicles with permanent
registration. Thus, if Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) set the
MVRT at $300, the maximum amount the DMV would collect is $100
and the MSB would need to collect the $300 MVRT.
MR. BREESE turned to Section 8, which highlights that
municipalities can set a MVRT as they see fit. The sponsor
discovered while working with AML last year that collecting the
MVRT could be a burden to some municipalities and since he did
not wish to adversely impact municipalities, the bill allows
local government to establish its own MVRT rate. In doing so,
local governments would establish the proposed MVRT tax by
ordinance, which would also allow communities to obtain input
from residents.
MR. BREESE stated, as mentioned earlier, Section 9 would
establish that the DMV would not collect more than $100;
however, this provision is not a cap, but would simply transfer
the responsibility to collect any MVRT greater than $100 to
municipalities or cities that impose the tax.
1:30:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the clarification on the
intent of Section 9.
MR. BREESE responded that the sponsor's intent is to keep taxes
low. Further, some confusion exists on whether the MVRT is a
state or municipal tax and this section would address this by
identifying the MVRT as a local tax imposed by a municipality or
a city and not the state.
1:31:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many municipalities have
taxes greater than $100, if any.
MR. BREESE referred to a list in members' packets, titled "MVRT
Collections by Community." He explained that once a non-
commercial vehicle reaches eight year in age, the DMV fees
flatten out. He pointed out the only community that charges
more than $100 is Unalaska and Dutch Harbor, which sets the MVRT
at $116, while the remaining communities MVRT rate is $100 or
less.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE clarified this bill refers to the MVRT and
not to a property tax.
1:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the sponsor statement
which read, "Permanent registration will result in a cost
savings for Alaskans." He suggested this would translate to tax
relief and not necessarily to cost savings.
MR. BREESE deferred to DMV to attest to any cost savings for the
state; however, he thought most vehicles are registered on-line.
Any cost savings for Alaskans would accrue after two years since
the permanent registration is a one-time fee of $25 fee rather
than the current biennial tax. Thus these vehicle owners would
no longer have to pay fees for the remaining time they own the
vehicle, he said.
1:34:31 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), reported the AML is currently neutral on HB 19. She said
the AML is awaiting reports from the 16 municipalities on the
financial impacts for each community. She offered her belief
most municipalities currently use the MVRT fees for road
maintenance or junk car removal.
1:35:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the DMV would issue a
special tag so owners would avoid tickets.
1:36:43 PM
AMY ERICKSON, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
Department of Administration (DOA), stated that if a permanent
registration fee is implemented the DMV would issue an orange
tag, which would be distinguished from other tags. In further
response to Representative Johnson, she answered it would be a
tag and not a special plate. In response to another question,
she answered that the DMV's revenues total approximately $70
million. She clarified that the DMV's revenues are
approximately $70 million and their expenses total approximately
$17 million.
1:38:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how many people renew online as
opposed to in person registration.
MS. ERICKSON answered that approximately 11 percent of
registrations are done in house and the rest are renewed online.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if certain staff were dedicated to
online versus in house.
MS. ERICKSON answered that the DMV does not dedicate staff
specifically to conduct online or in house transactions. In
further response to a question she agreed that the DMV staff
rotates and is not dedicated to performing one function.
1:39:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether anything would prevent the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) from setting up a substantially
higher MVRT.
MS. ERICKSON answered that nothing in the bill would prohibit
the MOA from setting a higher MVRT.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned whether the bill should have a
cap.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE indicated public testimony would be kept
open on HB 19.
[HB 19 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 19 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 19 Supporting DMV Registration Classes.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Support Motor Vehicle Registration Taxes Rates.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Version A.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB-19 Opposition letter.msg |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB 15-A.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 Fed Standard CMV.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 Norcom Support.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 Sponsor.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB015-DOA-DMV-2-01-13.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB015-DOT-MSCVE-2-2-2013.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB15 ACG Support ltr.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 CMV less than 14K.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 15 Support Ltr Ondola.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 15 |
| HB 19 Support Hansen.msg |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019-DOA-DMV-2-07-13.pdf |
HTRA 2/7/2013 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/14/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |